‘This article will look at just one of the (numerous) issues of which transactional solicitors need to be aware when dealing with residential conveyancing: protected residential tenancies. The following samples the chapter on Residential Leasehold Conveyancing in the Law Society’s latest publication: Risk & Negligence in Property Transactions edited by John de Waal QC.’

‘On 22 January 2019 the House of Commons Science & Technology Committee (“STC”) held an inquiry into “Japanese knotweed and the built environment”. It received written submissions from 27 interested parties, ranging from the Law Society and Royal Horticultural Society to companies specialising in the treatment of non-native invasive species and concerned individuals.’

‘In R(B) v Redbridge LBC [2019] EWHC 250 (Admin), Jeremy Johnson QC, sitting as a Deputy Judge, was required to adjudicate on what is, as far as I am concerned, a really important point of practice, given the nature and continuing obligations of suitability of accommodation in homelessness cases, and the increasing number of suitability reviews (especially following the 2017 Act). He also came to the wrong result imho – I wonder if there is an appeal, even if it becomes academic (which it might). Ms B was offered accommodation and sought a review. It was one of those ones where affordability is raised, but, given that one doesn’t know what the bills are going to be for the property at the outset, the reviewer and applicant make approximations. The review went against her, albeit on marginal grounds (and there are various consequential proceedings from that first review and appeal). For the purposes of this application for JR, however, what happened was that Ms B’s actual electricity bill arrived and it was more per week than had originally been estimated. She sought a further review, to which Redbridge did not respond, and which, ultimately, led to these proceedings as Redbridge did not conduct that further review.’

‘Adesotu v Lewisham LBC Case No E40CL183, a decision of HHJ Luba on preliminary issues handed down on 8th February 2019, is so going to the Court of Appeal that the judge (having been satisfied that Ms Adesotu and her household would continue to be accommodated by Lewisham) invited Counsel to agree the route to enable it to get there.’

‘A row about allocation of scarce housing could be heading for the court of appeal after judges rejected a claim that a housing association broke equality laws with its policy of providing homes only to Orthodox Jews.’

‘The public sector equality duty should be considered in cases of ‘cuckooing’ where a vulnerable resident’s home is taken over by others as a base for drug consumption and dealing, the High Court has said.’

‘Safi v Sandwell BC (2018) EWCA Civ 2876 can be regarded as a footnote of some significance in the factors which are relevant in determining whether a household is homeless for the purposes of s. 175, Housing Act 1996. (And, as a footnote to that footnote, a point for the cognoscenti of review processes: it is interesting that Sandwell has a review panel (whether officer or councillor-led is not clear from the report), which appears to work by way of meetings; such panels, which were frequently constituted prior to and just after the 1996 Act, are rare these days, reviews being conducted commonly by a single officer.)’

‘A repeatedly convicted landlord, ruled unfit to rent out property in a north London borough in 2015, has since received more than £500,000 in housing benefit payments from the same council that banned him. The discovery that a local authority is directly paying public money to a landlord its own officers describe as “rogue” is the latest example of the ineffective regulations designed to police the private rented sector’s worst offenders.’

‘Judgment was recently handed down in West Oxfordshire District Council v (1) Secretary of State for Housing Communites and Local Government (2) Rosconn Strategic Land Limited [2018] EWHC 3065 (Admin).’

‘Mears Limited v Costplan Services (South East) Limited & Others [2018] EWHC 3363 (TCC) concerned the development of student accommodation in Plymouth. Mears Limited (“Mears”) alleged that there were substantial and material deviations from the contractual drawings and sought declarations preventing the certification of practical completion, the practical effect of which was to allow Mears to terminate its agreement to take a lease of the accommodation.’